We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because it was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation (Section 2. Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three top APNIC officials. Later efforts on this topic have not introduced (based on my reading) any more essence to the topic.
"… I was there for those discussions, and I’m not sure how to put it more simply… ": With your knowledge of the past, you are uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However, it would be more expedient for everyone, if you could first read through at least the Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF Draft, before commenting. This is because EzIP proposal is based on the same general idea as the references you cited, but with a slight extra step that produced a series of surprising results. In particular, we took the “Caveats” above to our hearts before proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you while reviewing our work. Thanks,
1) " .... better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF channels. ": Thanks for the recommendation. I would appreciate very much if you could guide us to the specific contact. Before we attempt to do so, however, it would be prudent to report the history of our team's experience:
A\. The first IETF Draft on EzIP Project started from 2016\-12 as instructed by the ISE \(Independent Submission Editor\)\. Although, at that time Working Group SunSet4 had been in session for awhile\. But, we were not aware of, nor being informed about such\.
B\. In Summer of 2018, we discovered that SunSet4 had Concluded\. We contacted the person in charge of keeping an eye on possible future IPv4 activities, but did not receive any instruction to revise our course\.
C\. Recently, we were made aware of the Int\-Area activities\. Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses\.
D\. I just received an Int\-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support\.
Hope you can help us to close the loose ends\.
2) In the meantime, we realized that the simplest implementation of the EzIP proposal is to replace the 100.64/10 netblock used by CG-NAT with the 240/4 netblock. Next, taking advantage of the much larger address pool to begin practicing static address assignment related disciplines, a "packetized PSTN" is realized. From such a base, the EzIP powered CG-NAT behaving as an overlay network in parallel to the existing Internet for providing the same services, many of the drawbacks in the latter are mitigated! So, we decided to discuss the EzIP proposal directly with the NANOG colleagues, because the EzIP deployment can actually be rather stealthy.
1) " .... better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF channels. ": Thanks for the recommendation. I would appreciate very much if you could guide us to the specific contact. Before we attempt to do so, however, it would be prudent to report the history of our team's experience:
A. The first IETF Draft on EzIP Project started from 2016-12 as instructed by the ISE (Independent Submission Editor). Although, at that time Working Group SunSet4 had been in session for awhile. But, we were not aware of, nor being informed about such.
ISE != IETF. There is no responsible AD assigned so this is not classed as IETF work. For ISE work to become IETF work you need to convince a AD to sponsor the work.
B. In Summer of 2018, we discovered that SunSet4 had Concluded. We contacted the person in charge of keeping an eye on possible future IPv4 activities, but did not receive any instruction to revise our course.
C. Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.
D. I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.
Firstly nobody uses mailing list digests as references. Secondly anyone can post to the mailing list, you just need to subscribe. If you read the thread you can see there is no interest in this.
Hope you can help us to close the loose ends.
2) In the meantime, we realized that the simplest implementation of the EzIP proposal is to replace the 100.64/10 netblock used by CG-NAT with the 240/4 netblock. Next, taking advantage of the much larger address pool to begin practicing static address assignment related disciplines, a "packetized PSTN" is realized. From such a base, the EzIP powered CG-NAT behaving as an overlay network in parallel to the existing Internet for providing the same services, many of the drawbacks in the latter are mitigated! So, we decided to discuss the EzIP proposal directly with the NANOG colleagues, because the EzIP deployment can actually be rather stealthy.
So replace every CPE device, including the ones you don’t own, to support 240/4 then later replace every CPE device again or replace every CPE device with one that supports the IPv4aaS you have chosen to use and switch to IPv6-only between the ISP and the CPE and get IPv6 delivered to your customers. Lots of ISP’s have already gone to DS-Lite or 464XLAT, to name two IPv4aaS methods, to provide their clients access to the legacy IPv4 internet over IPv6-only links. Note nothing prevents there being a mixture of dual stack and IPv6-only clients on the same access network hardware.
Remember even using these addresses as a replacement for 100.64/10 requires every device behind the CPE to also support 240/4 or any traffic emitted from these addresses is subject to be discarded.
I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions.
C\. Recently, we were made aware of the Int\-Area activities\.
Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.
D\. I just received an Int\-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14
requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.
For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of
the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone
else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not
worth pursuing.
I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions, they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly enough, some have posted them here.) Another possibility is that they’re waiting until the draft is presented later this week before expressing their opinions.
There are quite a few responses. All expressed zero interest.
This is a pretty common pattern. Someone comes up with an idea, spends zero time researching the history of the problem or previous discussions,and submits it to the IETF. People point out that it’s been discussed before,and they aren’t interested,but the submitter stamps their feet because nobody is LISTENING to them.
I was referring to the relative number of responses to the most recent Schoen IPv4 maintenance draft at the link you gave (quoted by me), as compared to the responses here on the NANOG list. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I would argue that Schoen and the co-authors of that draft have spent time researching the problem and past discussions. For example, see the discussion on the internet-history list about the history of 0/8.
C. Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities.
Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.
D. I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14
requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.
For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of
the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone
else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not
worth pursuing.
R's,
John
*ahem*
Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and suppress debate, by relegating all group think dissenters as white noise nobodies? And if they have succeeded in doing such on their own forums, its more telling about their own process problems than anything else.
I sincerely hope I am mistaken in your characterization of the many fine individuals who have repeatedly gone on record in support of maintaining IPv4 responsibly until such time as it is properly obsoleted.
While I can understand being considered a nobody, other more notable definitely not nobodies have even on this tired topics' nth thread made themselves heard and some fairly clearly.
History will continue to show that the IETF pursued the path of pain for the internet.